Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH --- Correct Emulation Defined 2

On 3/21/25 11:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/21/2025 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/21/25 9:13 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/21/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/21/25 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:

>
DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
For every HHH at machine address 000015d2 that emulates
a finite number of steps of DDD according to the
semantics of the x86 programming language no DDD
ever reaches its own "ret" instruction halt state.
>

>
So, you demonstrate your utter stupidity and use of incorrect definitions.
>
For EVERY HHH at machine address 000015d2 that emulates just a finite number of steps and return, then the PROGRAM DDD

>
does not exist because HHH is invoked from main()
>
>

>
SO you admit to misdefining your system.
>

 typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
 I only admit that you have been dishonestly trying to
get away with the straw-man deception for at least
two years.

Your DDD isn't a program as defined, and if you include Halt7.c as part of the input,

 

Halt Deciders take PROGRAM (via a finite string representation) as their input. If DDD isn't a program, you can't ask about its halting behavior.
>

 The x86 machine code is the relevant example.
Since Turing machines cannot possibly directly examine
the behavior of other Turing machines halt deciders
must base their entire halting decision on the behavior
that this finite string actually specifies.
 

They can do the equivalent with a UTM. Note, your problem is the problem isn't based on what the decider "sees" as behavior, but its attempt to DETERMINE the actual behavior of the thing its input represents.

You seem brain dead on this point.

No, you are, because you refuse to look at the meaning of the actual problem.
The Halt Decider is to determine if the MACHINE represented by its input will halt.
Thus, its result MUST be based on the direct execution, which as you say, can not be directly observed, and thus must be indirectly determined, This is what makes it a PROBLEM, and not a 1st Grade exercise. Your problem seems to be that you think the world needs to be "fair" and not ask for things that can't be done. Sorry, it isn't, and some problems exist that can't be solved, just like you are going to DIE soon, and there is nothing you can do about it. Life just isn't fair, but we need to make the best of it, but it seems you have made the worse.

 

Note, if HHH is a program, then by the basic princples of programs, it can be made into a sub-program of another program. That is a basic part of a system being Turing Complete.
>
I guess your idea of programs are that your system is not Turing Complete.
>
Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.